Increased sedation requirements in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory and cardiorespiratory failure

Critically ill patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are often noted to have increased sedation requirements. However, data related to sedation in this complex group of patients is limited. The aim of our study was to characterise the sedation requirements in adult patients receiving ECMO for cardiorespiratory failure. A retrospective chart review was performed to collect sedation data for 30 consecutive patients who received venovenous or venoarterial ECMO between April 2009 and March 2011. To test for a difference in doses over time we used a regression model. The dose of midazolam received on ECMO support increased by an average of 18 mg per day (95% confidence interval 8, 29 mg, P=0.001), while the dose of morphine increased by 29 mg per day (95% confidence interval 4, 53 mg, P=0.021) The venovenous group received a daily midazolam dose that was 157 mg higher than the venoarterial group (95% confidence interval 53, 261 mg, P=0.005). We did not observe any significant increase in fentanyl doses over time (95% confidence interval 1269, 4337 µg, P=0.94). There is a significant increase in dose requirement for morphine and midazolam during ECMO. Patients on venovenous ECMO received higher sedative doses as compared to patients on venoarterial ECMO. Future research should focus on mechanisms behind these changes and also identify drugs that are most suitable for sedation during ECMO.

Nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheter laboratory : an integrative review

Objectives: To identify and appraise the literature concerning nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheter laboratory. Design and data sources: An integrative review method was chosen for this study. MEDLINE and CINAHL databases as well as The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute were searched. Nineteen research articles and three clinical guidelines were identified. Results: The authors of each study reported nurse-administered sedation in the CCL is safe due to the low incidence of complications. However, a higher percentage of deeply sedated patients were reported to experience complications than moderately sedated patients. To confound this issue, one clinical guideline permits deep sedation without an anaesthetist present, while others recommend against it. All clinical guidelines recommend nurses are educated about sedation concepts. Other findings focus on pain and discomfort and the cost-savings of nurse-administered sedation, which are associated with forgoing anaesthetic services. Conclusions: Practice is varied due to limitations in the evidence and inconsistent clinical practice guidelines. Therefore, recommendations for research and practice have been made. Research topics include determining how and in which circumstances capnography can be used in the CCL, discerning the economic impact of sedation-related complications and developing a set of objectives for nursing education about sedation. For practice, if deep sedation is administered without an anaesthetist present, it is essential nurses are adequately trained and have access to vital equipment such as capnography to monitor ventilation because deeply sedated patients are more likely to experience complications related to sedation. These initiatives will go some way to ensuring patients receiving nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia for a procedure in the cardiac catheter laboratory are cared for using consistent, safe and evidence-based practices.

Trends in nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia across cardiac catheterisation laboratories in Australia and New Zealand : results of an electronic survey

Background Knowledge of current trends in nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) may provide important insights into how to improve safety and effectiveness of this practice. Objective To characterise current practice as well as education and competency standards regarding nurse-administered PSA in Australian and New Zealand CCLs. Design A quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive survey design was used. Methods Data were collected using a web-based questionnaire on practice, educational standards and protocols related to nurse-administered PSA. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Results A sample of 62 nurses, each from a different CCL, completed a questionnaire that focused on PSA practice. Over half of the estimated total number of CCLs in Australia and New Zealand was represented. Nurse-administered PSA was used in 94% (n = 58) of respondents CCLs. All respondents indicated that benzodiazepines, opioids or a combination of both is used for PSA (n = 58). One respondent indicated that propofol was also used. 20% (n = 12) indicated that deep sedation is purposefully induced for defibrillation threshold testing and cardioversion without a second medical practitioner present. Sedation monitoring practices vary considerably between institutions. 31% (n = 18) indicated that comprehensive education about PSA is provided. 45% (n = 26) indicated that nurses who administer PSA should undergo competency assessment. Conclusion By characterising nurse-administered PSA in Australian and New Zealand CCLs, a baseline for future studies has been established. Areas of particular importance to improve include protocols for patient monitoring and comprehensive PSA education for CCL nurses in Australia and New Zealand.

Issues and challenges associated with nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : a qualitative study

Aims and objectives To explore issues and challenges associated with nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory from the perspectives of senior nurses. Background Nurses play an important part in managing sedation because the prescription is usually given verbally directly from the cardiologist who is performing the procedure and typically, an anaesthetist is not present. Design A qualitative exploratory design was employed. Methods Semi-structured interviews with 23 nurses from 16 cardiac catheterisation laboratories across four states in Australia and also New Zealand were conducted. Data analysis followed the guide developed by Braun and Clark to identify the main themes. Results Major themes emerged from analysis regarding the lack of access to anaesthetists, the limitations of sedative medications, the barriers to effective patient monitoring and the impact that the increasing complexity of procedures has on patients' sedation requirements. Conclusions The most critical issue identified in this study is that current guidelines, which are meant to apply regardless of the clinical setting, are not practical for the cardiac catheterisation laboratory due to a lack of access to anaesthetists. Furthermore, this study has demonstrated that nurses hold concerns about the legitimacy of their practice in situations when they are required to perform tasks outside of clinical practice guidelines. To address nurses' concerns, it is proposed that new guidelines could be developed, which address the unique circumstances in which sedation is used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Relevance to clinical practice Nurses need to possess advanced knowledge and skills in monitoring for the adverse effects of sedation. Several challenges impact on nurses' ability to monitor patients during procedural sedation and analgesia. Preprocedural patient education about what to expect from sedation is essential.

Risk factors for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : a matched case-control study

Background: Side effects of the medications used for procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory are known to cause impaired respiratory function. Impaired respiratory function poses considerable risk to patient safety as it can lead to inadequate oxygenation. Having knowledge about the conditions that predict impaired respiratory function prior to the procedure would enable nurses to identify at-risk patients and selectively implement intensive respiratory monitoring. This would reduce the possibility of inadequate oxygenation occurring. Aim: To identify pre-procedure risk factors for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Design: Retrospective matched case–control. Methods: 21 cases of impaired respiratory function were identified and matched to 113 controls from a consecutive cohort of patients over 18 years of age. Conditional logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for impaired respiratory function. Results: With each additional indicator of acute illness, case patients were nearly two times more likely than their controls to experience impaired respiratory function (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.19–2.67; p = 0.005). Indicators of acute illness included emergency admission, being transferred from a critical care unit for the procedure or requiring respiratory or haemodynamic support in the lead up to the procedure. Conclusion: Several factors that predict the likelihood of impaired respiratory function were identified. The results from this study could be used to inform prospective studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory.

Australian and New Zealand nurses’ perceptions of procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : a qualitative study

Background: Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists’ guidelines for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) are intended to apply across all clinical settings. As nurses are frequently responsible for patient care during PSA in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL), their perspectives can provide insight into the effectiveness of these guidelines within this particular setting. Methods: A cross-sectional sampling design was used to recruit nurses from urban, regional, public and private CCLs across Australia and New Zealand. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, digitally recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: Twenty-three nurses from 16 CCLs across four states in Australia and New Zealand participated. Most held senior positions (managers=14; educators=5) and CCL experience ranged from 4 to 26 years (mean 11). Participants were concerned about the legitimacy of their practice as they administered PSA outside of guideline recommendations and deemed present education and training as deficient. Participants noted also that guideline recommendations were sometimes not adhered to as it was difficult to balance the increasingly complex PSA requirements of their case-mix with limited access to anaesthetists while trying not to delay procedures. Conclusion: Findings suggest that application of current PSA guidelines may be impractical for CCL nurses and, as a consequence, they are often not followed. Participants were concerned about risks to patient safety as they felt education and training was not commensurable with practice requirements. The findings suggest existing guidelines should be reviewed or new guidelines developed which address nursing practice, education and competency standards for PSA in the CCL

Respiratory monitoring practices during procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory could be improved by using capnography to assess ventilation

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) administered by nurses in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) is unlikely to yield serious complications. However, the safety of this practice is dependent on timely identification and treatment of depressed respiratory function. Aim: Describe respiratory monitoring in the CCL. Methods: Retrospective medical record audit of adult patients who underwent a procedure in the CCLs of one private hospital in Brisbane during May and June 2010. An electronic database was used to identify subjects and an audit tool ensured data collection was standardised. Results: Nurses administered PSA during 172/473 (37%) procedures including coronary angiographies, percutaneous coronary interventions, electrophysiology studies, radiofrequency ablations, cardiac pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, temporary pacing leads and peripheral vascular interventions. Oxygen saturations were recorded during 160/172 (23%) procedures, respiration rate was recorded during 17/172 (10%) procedures, use of oxygen supplementation was recorded during 40/172 (23%) procedures and 13/172 (7.5%; 95% CI=3.59–11.41%) patients experienced oxygen desaturation. Conclusion: Although oxygen saturation was routinely documented, nurses did not regularly record respiration observations. It is likely that surgical draping and the requirement to minimise radiation exposure interfered with nurses’ ability to observe respiration. Capnography could overcome these barriers to respiration assessment as its accurate measurement of exhaled carbon dioxide coupled with the easily interpretable waveform output it produces, which displays a breath-by-breath account of ventilation, enables identification of respiratory depression in real-time. Results of this audit emphasise the need to ascertain the clinical benefits associated with using capnography to assess ventilation during PSA in the CCL.

Nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : a mixed methods study

The cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) is a specialised medical radiology facility where both chronic-stable and life-threatening cardiovascular illness is evaluated and treated. Although there are many potential sources of discomfort and distress associated with procedures performed in the CCL, a general anaesthetic is not usually required. For this reason, an anaesthetist is not routinely assigned to the CCL. Instead, to manage pain, discomfort and anxiety during the procedure, nurses administer a combination of sedative and analgesic medications according to direction from the cardiologist performing the procedure. This practice is referred to as nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). While anecdotal evidence suggested that nurse-administered PSA was commonly used in the CCL, it was clear from the limited information available that current nurse-led PSA administration and monitoring practices varied and that there was contention around some aspects of practice including the type of medications that were suitable to be used and the depth of sedation that could be safely induced without an anaesthetist present. The overall aim of the program of research presented in this thesis was to establish an evidence base for nurse-led sedation practices in the CCL context. A sequential mixed methods design was used over three phases. The objective of the first phase was to appraise the existing evidence for nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. Two studies were conducted. The first study was an integrative review of empirical research studies and clinical practice guidelines focused on nurse-administered PSA in the CCL as well as in other similar procedural settings. This was the first review to systematically appraise the available evidence supporting the use of nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. A major finding was that, overall, nurse-administered PSA in the CCL was generally deemed to be safe. However, it was concluded from the analysis of the studies and the guidelines that were included in the review, that the management of sedation in the CCL was impacted by a variety of contextual factors including local hospital policy, workforce constraints and cardiologists’ preferences for the type of sedation used. The second study in the first phase was conducted to identify a sedation scale that could be used to monitor level of sedation during nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. It involved a structured literature review and psychometric analysis of scale properties. However, only one scale was found that was developed specifically for the CCL, which had not undergone psychometric testing. Several weaknesses were identified in its item structure. Other sedation scales that were identified were developed for the ICU. Although these scales have demonstrated validity and reliability in the ICU, weaknesses in their item structure precluded their use in the CCL. As findings indicated that no existing sedation scale should be applied to practice in the CCL, recommendations for the development and psychometric testing of a new sedation scale were developed. The objective of the second phase of the program of research was to explore current practice. Three studies were conducted in this phase using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The first was a qualitative explorative study of nurses’ perceptions of the issues and challenges associated with nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. Major themes emerged from analysis of the qualitative data regarding the lack of access to anaesthetists, the limitations of sedative medications, the barriers to effective patient monitoring and the impact that the increasing complexity of procedures has on patients' sedation requirements. The second study in Phase Two was a cross-sectional survey of nurse-administered PSA practice in Australian and New Zealand CCLs. This was the first study to quantify the frequency that nurse-administered PSA was used in the CCL setting and to characterise associated nursing practices. It was found that nearly all CCLs utilise nurse-administered PSA (94%). Of note, by characterising nurse-administered PSA in Australian and New Zealand CCLs, several strategies to improve practice, such as setting up protocols for patient monitoring and establishing comprehensive PSA education for CCL nurses, were identified. The third study in Phase Two was a matched case-control study of risk factors for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered PSA in the CCL setting. Patients with acute illness were found to be nearly twice as likely to experience impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered PSA (OR=1.78; 95%CI=1.19-2.67; p=0.005). These significant findings can now be used to inform prospective studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. The objective of the third and final phase of the program of research was to develop recommendations for practice. To achieve this objective, a synthesis of findings from the previous phases of the program of research informed a modified Delphi study, which was conducted to develop a set of clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. The clinical practice guidelines that were developed set current best practice standards for pre-procedural patient assessment and risk screening practices as well as the intra and post-procedural patient monitoring practices that nurses who administer PSA in the CCL should undertake in order to deliver safe, evidence-based and consistent care to the many patients who undergo procedures in this setting. In summary, the mixed methods approach that was used clearly enabled the research objectives to be comprehensively addressed in an informed sequential manner, and, as a consequence, this thesis has generated a substantial amount of new knowledge to inform and support nurse-led sedation practice in the CCL context. However, a limitation of the research to note is that the comprehensive appraisal of the evidence conducted, combined with the guideline development process, highlighted that there were numerous deficiencies in the evidence base. As such, rather than being based on high-level evidence, many of the recommendations for practice were produced by consensus. For this reason, further research is required in order to ascertain which specific practices result in the most optimal patient and health service outcomes. Therefore, along with necessary guideline implementation and evaluation projects, post-doctoral research is planned to follow up on the research gaps identified, which are planned to form part of a continuing program of research in this field.

Acute illness is a risk factor for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory

Impaired respiratory function (IRF) during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) poses considerable risk to patient safety as it can lead to inadequate oxygenation and ventilation. Risk factors that can be screened prior to the procedure have not been identified for the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL).

Utility of dexmedetomidine in sedation for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation.

[Letter to the Editor] I read with great interest the article recently published in the Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing that examined the utility of using dexmedetomidine (DEX) as an adjunct to midazolam and fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation (AF).1 With the view toward advancing knowledge about more effective medications for sedation in this challenging context, I offer the following insights for readers to consider regarding this study...

Clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : A modified Delphi study

Aim To develop clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Background Numerous studies have reported that nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia is safe. However, the broad scope of existing guidelines for the administration and monitoring of patients who receive sedation during medical procedures without an anaesthetist presents means there is a lack of specific guidance regarding optimal nursing practices for the unique circumstances in which nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia is used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Methods A sequential mixed methods design was utilised. Initial recommendations were produced from three studies conducted by the authors: an integrative review; a qualitative study; and a cross-sectional survey. The recommendations were revised in accordance with responses from a modified Delphi study. The first Delphi round was completed by nine senior cardiac catheterisation laboratory nurses. All but one of the draft recommendations met the pre-determined cut-off point for inclusion. There were a total of 59 responses to the second round. Consensus was reached on all recommendations. Implications for nursing The guidelines that were derived from the Delphi study offer twenty four recommendations within six domains of nursing practice: Pre-procedural assessment; Pre-procedural patient and family education; Pre-procedural patient comfort; Intra-procedural patient comfort; Intra-procedural patient assessment and monitoring; and Post-procedural patient assessment and monitoring. Conclusion These guidelines provide an important foundation towards the delivery of safe, consistent and evidence-based nursing care for the many patients who receive sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory setting.

A review of sedation scales for the cardiac catheterization laboratory

Sedation scales have the potential to facilitate effective procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). For this potential to become realised, a scale that is suitable for use in the CCL either needs to be identified or developed. To identify sedation scales, a review of Medline and CINHAL was conducted. One sedation scale for the CCL, the NASPE SED, and 15 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) scales met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis of the scale’s item structures and psychometric properties was then performed. None of these scales were deemed suitable for use in the CCL. As such, further research is required to develop a new scale. The new scale should consist of more than one item because it will be the most effective for tracking the patient’s response to medications. Specific tests required to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the new scale’s psychometric properties are outlined in this paper.

Is sedation by non-anaesthetists really safe?

I read with great interest the editorial recently published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia that questioned whether sedation by non-anaesthetists is really safe. The authors noted their ‘grave concerns’ about the emerging practice of non-anaesthetist administered propofol (NAAP) during electrophysiology procedures. I offer the following insights into this issue.

Sedation breaks : are they good for the critically ill patient? A review.

Background:  Tradition has led us to believe that a heavily sedated patient is a comfortable, settled, compliant patient for whom sedation will improve outcome. The current move witnessed in clinical practice today of limiting sedation has led health care in recent years to question the benefit and necessity of routine, continuous sedation for all patients requiring mechanical ventilation. However, as a result there has been a rise in the amount of agitation being reported as being experienced by patients with the daily withdrawal of sedation. Aims:  The purpose of this paper is to review current arguments for and against perserving with agitation versus re-sedating, when it presents during the daily sedation breaks. Findings:  Of the literature reviewed, the question to re-sedate the mechanically ventilated agitated patient during sedation breaks remains an issue of contention. Although there is evidence focusing on the psychological effects of long-term sedation and sedation breaks specifically, the complex nature of critical illness in some cases means that individualized care is of paramount importance and in-depth assessment is crucial when deciding to re-sedate in the face of undetermined agitation. Agitation has been closely linked with several incidents that can be detrimental to patient safety, such as removal of lines and unplanned self-extubation. Conclusion:  The recommendations of this review are that nurses should re-commence sedation if the patient becomes agitated following a sedation break. Aims:  The purpose of this paper is to review current arguments for and against perserving with agitation versus re-sedating, when it presents during the daily sedation breaks. Findings:  Of the literature reviewed, the question to re-sedate the mechanically ventilated agitated patient during sedation breaks remains an issue of contention. Although there is evidence focusing on the psychological effects of long-term sedation and sedation breaks specifically, the complex nature of critical illness in some cases means that individualized care is of paramount importance and in-depth assessment is crucial when deciding to re-sedate in the face of undetermined agitation. Agitation has been closely linked with several incidents that can be detrimental to patient safety, such as removal of lines and unplanned self-extubation. Conclusion:  The recommendations of this review are that nurses should re-commence sedation if the patient becomes agitated following a sedation break.

A review of the effects of sedation on thermoregulation : insights for the cardiac catheterisation laboratory

Purpose To examine the effects that the sedative and analgesic medications which are commonly used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory have on thermoregulation. Design A structured review strategy was used. Methods Medline and CINAHL were searched for published studies and reference lists of retrieved studies were scrutinized for further research. Data were extracted using a standardised extraction tool. Results A total of nine studies examined the effect that sedative and analgesic medications have on thermoregulation. Midazolam has minimal impact on thermoregulation while opioids, dexmedetomidine and propofol markedly decrease vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. Conclusions Patients who receive sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory may be at risk of hypothermia, due to the use of medications that impair thermoregulation. Further research is required to identify the prevalence of unplanned hypothermia during sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory.